Headlines

NYT

Petraeus: Al Qaeda mention was removed from Benghazi memo so as not to tip them off

“The points were not, as has been insinuated by some, edited to minimize the role of extremists, diminish terrorist affiliations, or play down that this was an attack,” said a senior official familiar with the drafting of the talking points. “There were legitimate intelligence and legal issues to consider, as is almost always the case when explaining classified assessments publicly.”

Some intelligence analysts worried, for instance, that identifying the groups could reveal that American spy services were eavesdropping on the militants — a fact most insurgents are already aware of. Justice Department lawyers expressed concern about jeopardizing the F.B.I.’s criminal inquiry in the attacks. Other officials voiced concern that making the names public, at least right away, would create a circular reporting loop and hamper efforts to trail the militants.

Democrats said Mr. Petraeus made it clear the change had not been done for political reasons to aid Mr. Obama. “The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda,” said Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

It’s a month after 9-11-01. The Bush administration is in trouble because for the past month he and others in his administration have been blaming the attack on NY and DC on a radical environmental group upset that Gore lost in 2000. It has since been learned that the Islamic terrorist group that took credit for it was in fact the group that carried it out. Would the press allow the Bush to say, “yeah we knew it was AQ. But we didn’t want them to know we knew.”

The AQ reference was taken off the talking points as to not tip off the american people during an election that Obama is a lieing sack of sh* t whose re-election was more important than 4 dead americans and numerous wounded.

At some point in the process — Mr. Petraeus told lawmakers he was not sure where — objections were raised to naming the groups, and the less specific word “extremists” was substituted.

Democrats said Mr. Petraeus made it clear the change had not been done for political reasons to aid Mr. Obama.

He doesn’t know where, but he knows for damn sure why not? Go ahead, pull the other one.

“and the less specific word “extremists” was substituted”

… and a cock-and-bull story about a video got added in.

Hasn’t anybody noticed that when Obama picked a cover story, he picked one that could be made to reflect poorly on America? Instead of throwing Hillary under the bus like he was widely expected to do, he threw our image. Nice work, junior.

Al Qaeda mention was removed from Benghazi memo so as not to tip them off

Hey, why didn’t GWB think of this brilliant tactic after 9/11? We could have snuck up on them in Afghanistan or something. Maybe we should have pretended Al Qaeda didn’t exist, so as not to tip them off and give them any credit. That would have worked, wouldn’t it?

Someone needs to invent a political spin generator. The faster they spin the more power is produced. Well with this they could power the whole east coast for some time. It will be carbon neutral but BS overload.

So, cabinet level Susan Rice was sent out with a story to tell, that she didn’t know was false, or she’s been lying to us that she didn’t know. In either case she’s a tool and unfit for any position of trust.

So, terrorists post on social media they are responsible for the attack in Libya, but yet our government lies to everyone because they don’t want to “tip off” these same terrorists that are taking credit for it?

I think this is another passive-aggressive political move by Obama, and he has perfected it by now.

Just like the birth certificate issue: he could have revealed it early on and ended the controversy, but he didn’t. The ensuing fulminations on the right made them look bad, not Obama, when he finally did release it.

Now, he lets the right go crazy for two months and then says, oh, national security!

Hey, at least they are now admitting that the “video did it” explanations were a lie all along. – forest on November 17, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Pretty stand-up eh? – CW on November 17, 2012 at 11:15 AM

I will never forgive Obama for saying it was all about “the video” countless times, while standing at the United Nations podium. Where is the speech condemning the attack and telling those that did it that we will be hunting them down wherever they may be? Obama has made it open season on United States missions around the world, along with the help Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

This is so implausible that it is insulting. This is the equivalent of Eliot Ness blaming a gang fight in Chicago on a family dispute because he didn’t want to tip off Al Capone.

Benghazi is an isolated, remote area about the size of Chicago that has been a terrorist hotbed for decades. Ghaddafi warned about the terrorists that inhabit Benghazi, calling them “the bearded ones from the east”.

So we knowingly have some sort of CIA operation smack dab in the middle of a terrorist haven which comes under attack by the local residents terrorists and we blame it on a Youtube video so we don’t tip off the residents of Benghazi terrorists?

When Osama Bin Laden was killed – there was a legitimate tactical reason for not saying a damn thing about it. “Osama Bin Laden? What? We don’t know where he’s at!”

Had we done that AQ would have been in a pickle. “Do the Americans have Osama in Gitmo and is he telling them anything?” … “Is Osama Dead?”

This uncertainty would have caused some complete chicanery in the remaining AQ leadership we could have exploited.

However – we chose to TELL EVERYONE FOR POLITICAL REASONS. That tells me this White House treats these things politically.

So when information is “withheld” – it’s more likely there’s a political reason for withholding it like … oh say … A REELECTION CAMPAIGN??

HondaV65 on November 17, 2012 at 11:34 AM

I can’t believe how mean and unfair you are to 0dumba’s administration – why can’t you acknowledge that they learned from that mistake with OBL, and this time, they made sure to keep quiet in order to achieve the strategic uncertainty you are referring to?

Racism, sexism, and hatred must be blinding you from seeing truth about 0dumba and his wise, benevolent administration!

The LA times says ties to al qaeda were downplayed to avoid tipping off the terrorists.

red_herring on November 16, 2012 at 4:39 PM

lol this is so sad, yet hilarious!

profitsbeard, from early this morning:

Barry’s next lie will be to claim that he was lying to deceive the terrorists and make catching them easier.

“Folks… it was what the intelligence people call ‘strategic misdirection’ to keep the enemy guessing. I’m sorry I had to involve Ms. Rice in it, but she is entirely blameless. We could not let the terrorists know we were on to them so fast. We were letting them play out the line so that we can haul in more of them.”

Did this same New York Times tip off the terrorists when they “spent two leisurely hours on Thursday evening at a crowded luxury hotel, sipping mango juice strawberry frappe on a patio and scoffing at the threats coming from the American and Libyan governments.” with terrorist mastermind Ahmed Abu Khattala in Benghazi?